TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (10) TMI 2147
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ry 1999 to March 2000. Upon investigation by the Central Excise Preventive Group, it was revealed that the processor who undertakes processing of fabrics for several customers had suppressed the actual production of the processed fabrics in the statutory records and had shown only lesser quantity. Hence, the petitioner was put on notice by the department proposing for recovery of the excess rebate sanctioned. Upon confirmation of the demand for recovery of the excess rebate sanctioned along with interest besides imposition of penalty by the lower authority vide Order-in-Original Sl.No.5/2006, dated 31.3.2006. 3. Aggrieved by the said order, dated 31.3.2006, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), Salem. The appellate authority vide his order-in-appeal No.144/2006, dated 1.8.2006, while setting aside the order, dated 31.3.2006, remanded the matter to the lower authority. However, the matter was adjudicated denovo vide order, dated 12.09.2008, confirming the demand of Rs. 30,73,604/- along with interest and penalty of Rs. 30,73,604/-. Again, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who, by order, dated 29.1.2010 rejected the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....excess rebate over and above the eligible rebate based on the disclaimer certificate issued by the manufacturer, who actually paid the appropriate duty under ACP scheme. Thus an order in original, dated 28.8.2006 had been passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Salem on the processor M/s.Erode Rana Textile Processors (P) Ltd., Bhavani (ERTP) confirming the demand of Rs. 4,00,72,500/- along with interest besides imposition of penalties. The said ERTP have not filed any appeal against the said order and also they have not disputed the quantity of production unearthed by the department. In such situation, the petitioner/exporter has to accept the production suppressed by the manufacturer and claimed excess rebate thereof. In order to escape from the liability only, the petitioner requested for the documents, which serve no purpose for their defence. Therefore, having regard to the facts and circumstances and the well considered orders passed by the lower authorities, the 2nd respondent has rightly rejected the revision application filed by the petitioner, which does not warrant interference of this Court. With these averments, the respondents sought for dismissal of the writ pet....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the same has been passed by the 5th respondent without providing the relied upon documents, which is in violation of principles of natural justice and accordingly, while setting aside the said order, remanded the matter to the 5th respondent with a specific direction, which reads as under: "6.5. the Lower Authority is directed to supply the relied upon documents to the appellant. If the documents are voluminous, the appellant should be given adequate opportunity for perusal of the documents and to take copies of the same if required by the appellant. The appellant is directed to submit the reply within one month from the date of completion of the receipt/perusal of the relied upon documents and the lower authority is directed to pass an appealable order thereafter. It is needless to stress that appellant should be given the opportunity of hearing before passing the order." 9. Pursuant to the above order, if the 5th respondent has acted in terms of the directions given by the appellate authority, absolutely the matter would be different. However, the 5th respondent, by order, 12.09.2008, has dealt with the circumstances under which, there is no necessity to provide copies of rel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....efore, the appellate authority has categorically come to the conclusion that the entire case is on the documents recovered from the job worker of the appellant and the petitioner is right in asking for the documents for perusal before giving any reply and that none of the letters sent by the petitioner were not replied by the 5th respondent nor furnished the documents, which amount to violation of principles of natural justice. When such being the conclusion, it is not appropriate for the 5th respondent, to act beyond the order of the appellate authority and to give reasons under which, it is not necessary to furnish the documents, which were not discussed by the appellate authority. I am perplexed rather than failed to understand the observation made by the 5th respondent in para 19 of his order stating that. When the whole scheme of evasion through illicit design had been accepted and uncontested by the processor M/s.ERTP, I hold that there is no necessity to provide such copies of documents to M/s.AEL. Admittedly, the petitioner has neither accepted nor uncontested the matter and since M/s.ERTP has accepted the evasion of the scheme, it does not mean or construe that the petitio....